I lived for 2yr in Reading, UK, and it was pretty cool how the city center was closed off from cars. It made for a vibrant shopping district. I understand that's pretty common in the UK. I would love to see small-to-medium size U.S. cities take the practice up.

Actually, that makes me remember how Denver has the 16th(?) St area, which is pedestrians and free-buses (and bikes) only. A little different as it's just one street all in a line (like 8-12 blocks long), and cars still come across at every intersection, but still a nice compromise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

"you must be the change you wish to see in the world"

among the myriad reasons to be car-free, car-light, or whatever, i probably have an outlier one: aesthetic.

i simply don't care for the way that places designed and built primarily/exclusively for cars look and feel (which is the lion's share of post-war america).

i've always been drawn to the human scale of the urban city, and as such, kinda backed myself into this lifestyle more than it being a fully conscious choice on my part.

all of the other benefits, to the extent that they exist (better health, money saved, smaller carbon foot-print, whatever), have been happy accidents growing out of my love for urban living.

what can i say, i'm just a fool for the city.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RubeRad

I lived for 2yr in Reading, UK, and it was pretty cool how the city center was closed off from cars. It made for a vibrant shopping district. I understand that's pretty common in the UK. I would love to see small-to-medium size U.S. cities take the practice up.

Actually, that makes me remember how Denver has the 16th(?) St area, which is pedestrians and free-buses (and bikes) only. A little different as it's just one street all in a line (like 8-12 blocks long), and cars still come across at every intersection, but still a nice compromise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim from Boston

Some cities never lost those neighborhoods, like Boston.

It seems to me that in order to be an attractive place to support a variety of restaurants and shops to which to walk (and not drive to visit that neighborhood0… a neighborhood must be a large area with a substantial, dense population living there, likely that evolved in the pre-automotive era.

I think a lot of urban revitalization projects tend to create enclaves as driving destinations to walk around in such large cities like in my native Detroit

I’m a fool (enthusiastic advocate) for my City:The black line on the street map represents one (1) mile.
.

We (gf and I) think that the UK is quite ****ty for this compared to the cities on the continent that have much larger Fussgaengerzone (Pedestrian zones) and much butter cycle-only facilities.

yeah, the pedestrian zones of those old medieval european cities are wonderful places to explore, but i wasn't talking about anything that extreme.

where i live in chicago we still have streets with cars, but there's a better balance to things compared to modern day suburban planning where everything is all car, CAR, CAR!!!!

when i want to go out to eat or run errands, i want to walk a block or two over to a neighborhood retail street that looks like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9648...7i16384!8i8192

as opposed to getting in a car and driving to one that looks like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.0546...7i13312!8i6656

the first example (my neighborhood), though it allows for cars, is still walkable and human-scaled in a way that the second example just isn't.

I gotta say those both look awful. I had much higher hopes.

Didn't you say that you lived in a central area? Those both look like endless surburbia to me.

no, i never said that because i don't exactly know what "central area" means, but lincoln square (our neighborhood) is roughly 7 miles NNW of the loop (the heart of downtown chicago).

and if those both look they function exactly the same to you, then i can't help you. one of those examples is CLEARLY more auto-centric in design and practice than the other.

As in it looks boring and not as central as you make it out to be.

When I said I lived in Frankfurt, I meant central:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/La...03!4d8.6828906

When I said I lived in Stockholm, I meant central:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Fl...68!4d18.029333

or in Copenhagen:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Gr...9!4d12.5759959

Not to be mean, I just guess that I had higher hopes for Chicago that those two images.

^ i never said i lived in a central area, so i don't know what you're going on about with that.


but i used to live here: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8864.../data=!3m1!1e3

is that "central" enough for you?


and newsflash: america isn't europe!

film at 11.

Sorry, like I said I'm just disappointed. I just don't see much difference between Columbus, OH and Chicago. I just expected more, that's all. Pittsburgh, looks more interesting. Off to NOLA in a month or so, which should be quite nice again.

No need to get defensive. And, no, it's doesn't look that organic ... too modern.

Absolutely. I see clearly how (a) is more ped/cycle friendly and (b) is the result of 'murka's decades-long obsession with the automobile.

Both of the avenues/streets are fackin' wide. Damnit man.

yep. america's unrelenting love affair with the car has left us with some of the bleakest, most disjointed built environments on the planet.

these kinds of distinctions probably go unnoticed by the masses who drive around all day from one parking lot to the next, but it's something i've always been sensitive to, and has always driven my decisions on where to live.

i was living car-free in the city for 7 year before i even re-discovered bike commuting/transportation cycling. so, this whole biking thing was more of a "oh, i suppose i can do that too" realization than anything i specifically organized my life around. and were i still a bachelor and living where i do now, i'd absolutely still be car-free, but cars do make kids profoundly easier at times.

sorry man, I just don't see a difference between (A) and (B) above.

I grew up here, so it's not like I don't understand America. But (A) and (B) and pretty much synonymous and pretty much surburbia with a wider avenue in one of them.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/...!4d-70.5986223

The biggest difference will be car speed. In (a) cars will expect to stop every block or so and probably never go over 25. Bikes can take the lane and nobody will be inconvenienced or aggravated. Shops being fronted right up to the wide sidewalk+street and limited parking (on-street only) make it more likely cars will park in neighboring blocks and walk in, or just go find a shopping center like (b) with giant parking lots, and storefronts a quarter mile from high-volume multilane streets with posted 45mph but in practice 60mph speeds.

yes, your myopia has been duly noted.

to someone like me who has lived in both urban and suburban chicago, the functional and aesthetic differences between A and B are abundant in both number and clarity.

Sure man. No need to get defensive. You can keep that tiny pedestrian street filled with car and live in bliss if you like. I've lived quite a few places and both of those would be very low on my list.

so, you're saying the chances of us becoming neighbors anytime soon are really low!?!




#sleepingeasierinchitown

Nice mature response. Enjoy surburbia, I'll enjoy sailing and trying to get my RYA Yachtmaster.

nice sarcastic response.









not only that, but our neighborhood has the necessary residential population density (~25,000 ppsm) such that enough people (like us) live close enough to the neighborhood retail street that they can simply walk there, obviating the need for large amounts of car storage as is typically needed in suburbia where lower population density (typically in the 2,000 - 5,000 ppsm range) means most retail establishments can't survive without parking lots/garages.

I walk places a lot, and I do notice. Sometimes it's an adventure just walking from one big box store to the next. That can be almost impossible sometimes, or at least challenging.

I wouldn't get all excited about 25K ppl/mi2 if that's true as the options on that street and surrounding streets look quite sparse without park/sea access.

I see maybe 20-30 restaurants and essentially no clothing shoppes.

I'm honestly not trying to dump on it, but it's not so inspiring. It is better than a mall but it's a narrow pavement (sidewalk) without a lot which could almost be a long "strip mall" directly next to the street. No sidewalk cafes, eating in front of the shoppes, etc...

We're about the same population density but have access to the sea and a large green space with nice old pubs and such. We're about 40-50K ppl/mi2 (my ward) and everything is within walking distance / short cycle (1-3 miles) including work. They're rolling out permitted parking, which is great cause it will cut down on all of the cars on the island.




We also have ugly shopping malls too like that KOHL's (behind the tower in the photo below) ... god I hate those temples of commercialism ... I bring only my most vapid visitors there and stick them on that train next to (left) it so they can to London and see the tower/dungeon/eye/ben/etc....




I much prefer the brewery in the alley next to the football stadium, but it's getting too popular now, so I need to find the next new interesting place

https://bit.ly/2AM4zq4

yeah, the disjointedness/disconnectivity of suburbia can be ridiculous at times.

my sister's family lives up in suburban lake county, illinois. there's a liquor store literally 1/4 mile from her house as the crow flies, but to to walk there is nearly 1.5 miles because there's no pedestrian connection out of their closed off subdivision to the the main road where the liquor store is.

you first have to go all the way back through their one way in/one way out subdivision to a different main road, and then loop all the way back around to the other main road where the store is.

i know this because i was staying with her one time and looked it up on g-maps, and then said eff it, "hey sis, can i borrow your car to pick up some beer?"

it's right there, only a 1/4 mile away. you could probably see it from her roof if not for all the trees, but you can't get there from here.

I stayed in a motel in central Missouri on a bike tour a few years ago. It was right on an Interstate-type highway. I could SEE a shopping center on the other side of the highway and wanted to walk there to take a break from the bike. Like you, it was 1/4 mile away tops. I walked and walked and walked to find a way across that big highway. Probably took a hour each way. Sheesh. Could have been there in a car in 3 minutes.

I walk often to get around when I travel -- sometimes a couple or three miles one-way. Areas built out during the 1970s and later are pretty much awful. Sidewalks randomly start and stop, one is forced to walk in breakdown lanes, poles come up in the middle of narrow sidewalks, walk buttons are fifteen or 20 feet from intersections one wishes to cross, buildings are built with their butt-ends toward the streets. Getting between neighboring businesses sometimes requires climbing grassy embankments, walking through weed and debris filled open space, and I've even climbed banks of rip-rap-rock to get where I'm going. Chicago's Loop and New York's Manhattan are nirvana by comparison.